Jump to content

Talk:Tajiks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yamaweiss (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 29 September 2011 (→This article should be moved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Tajik people in India

Any estimates available on Tajik people in India. there are ethnic pashtuns in northern India. actor Aamir Khan is of Tajik descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.34.34 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tājik" is the correct way

Please don't write "Tājīk", that is incorrect. Encyclopedia Iranica writes it as "Tājik" and that is the correct pronunciation. Dupree3 (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a semantic issue in transliteration, and there is no one "correct" way. Sure, Iranica uses the long slash to represent the long vowel, as does the Library of Congress, however other systems, particularly in Europe use the circumflex, so it is written as Tâjik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.95.98 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder why there is no mention of genetic studies of Tajiks? i am sure it is going to help understanding the article beter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.253.242 (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farsizaban?

Another term used is Farsizaban. Should that be mentioned also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BEIJINGBOY2 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terms not used in English may be more confusing than useful, especially as some authors do not distinguish between Farsiwan and Tajiks, despite the warning in the Encyc. Iranica. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EofI is written by more scholars than EI. EofI says:


and


—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealAfghan112 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes in the article about Afghanistan (section "ethnography"):
2) Tajik is the general name of the Persian-speaking population of Afghanistan, often also called Parsiwans, or, in the East and South, Dihgans and Dihwars. They are villagers, and also the inhabitants of most towns speak Persian. The Tajiks have no tribal organization, except in some remote regions. In the villages they are peaceful tenants. In Harat and Sistan they are a direct continuation of the Persians of Persia, while in Northern Afghanistan (from Maymana to Badakhshan) they are in contact with the Tajiks of the Soviet Union. In South-eastern Afghanistan they occupy some of the most fertile agricultural districts around Ghazna and in the Kabul region.
Obviously, the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not make the distinctions that ethnographers make. This is not surprising since it is not an ethnographic encyclopedia. Some groups, such as the Pamiri people take offense at being called Tajik. Others are often included within a Persian-speaking classification that don't even speak a southwestern Iranian language, such as the Wakhi people. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Afghanistan

The section "Location - Afghanistan" does not seem to be based upon the data provided at Demographics of Afghanistan nor individual city and province data in the individual articles about Afghanistan. For example, the city of Ghazni is listed as about 50% Tajik, but the province is mostly Pashtun and Hazara. So this section could stand a detailed rewrite. --Bejnar (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example Surkh Rod District of Nangarhar province is 5% Tajik, 88% Pashtun, and 7% Other according to UNCHR Profile. So I have removed it from the section as not having a significant minority. --Bejnar (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Province" is unidentifed. Apparently, unconfirmed, there is a Toopkhana in Badakhshan Province. Anyone have a citation for "Toopkhana locality in Kandahar Province"? --Bejnar (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wardak Province is another example where the figures don't jibe. Almost all ethnicity figures show that Pashtuns and Hazaras together make up 90% of the population with 10% other. This does not leave room for much of a "significant Tajik minority". Interestingly, Afghan Magazine (not necessarily a reliable source) mentions "Pashtu-speaking Tajiks in Wardak" in an article entitled "Afghan History: kite flying, kite running and kite banning" by Mir Hekmatullah Sadat. --Bejnar (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then go fix it instead of putting a tag there and reducing the quality of the article. Follow the rules. Rule #1 is to improve the quality of articles... not to have personal feuds with other users just so you can feel good about yourself over the internet. Don't waste our time if you don't want to improve the quality of articles.

Changes to the introduction

Changed the introduction to be more in line with the rest of the article:

Tājik' (Persian: تاجيک; UniPers: Tâjik; Tajik: Тоҷик) is a term generally applied to Persian language speakers of primarily East Iranic (mixed Sogdian, Khorezmian, Bactrian, Tokharian and Parthian)[1] origin living in Central Asia. The traditional Tajik homelands are in present-day Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and southern Uzbekistan.

  • [1] Krader, L. 1963. Formations of the Peoples. Indiana Uralic and Altaic Series v. 26- Peoples of Central Asia: 54-57, Hirth, F. 1917. The story of Chang K'ien, China's pioneer in Western Asia. Journal of the American Oriental Society. v. 37, no.2: 89-152; Shiratori, K. 1902. Über den Wu-sun-Stamm in Centralasien, 103-140.

The area 'northeast of Iran' has a name; it is Central Asia. Mondo Libero (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Parthian is not east Iranic. Your source are slightly outdated and their authors are not well known. I quote Professor Richard Frye here:"the Persian migration to Central Asia may be considered the beginning of the "modern" Tajik nation, and ethnic Persians along with East-Iranian Bactrians and Sogdians, as the main ancestors of "modern" Tajiks"" from the current article. For example here is another source:"After the conquest of Central Asia by Muslims, not only Arabs but also increasing number of Persians and Sogdians professed the new religion, and all these came to compromise the ethnonym "Tajik". Eventually the Persian speaking converts outnumbered the Arabs, and the ethnonym which had once been the name of Arab tribes ended up being reserved for Persian-speaking Muslims of central Asia and their language."(Svatopluk Soucek, A History of inner Asia, Cambridge University Press, 2000. pg 32). I have to remind again that Persian of Achaemenid times is different than Persian of Sassanid times. Persian expanded in Sassanid times because of large number of Persians in Afghanistan/Central Asia who mixed in with Sogdians and Chorasmians. So I think it is better to have updated sources. It seems that the sources overall say that Tajik ethnogenesis is based upon old (Sogdians, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, Sakas, Chorasmians) and Persian basically became the ethnic language and was actually refined by Sogdian/Parthian/Bactrian from Khorasan. So I think these details are best kept in the history section. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bejnar

"Persian" and "Tajik" are synonyms. And this article is about the Persians of Central Asia. And these Persians doe not speak "a form of Persian", they speak simply the Persian language which has various dialects, like all languages.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes in regard of the Timurid dynasty:

"... During the Timurid period, three languages, Persian, Turkish, and Arabic were in use. The major language of the period was Persian, the native language of the Tajik (Persian) component of society and the language of learning acquired by all literate and/or urban Turks. Persian served as the language of administration, history, belles lettres, and poetry. ..."

- B.F. Manz/W.M. Thackston/D.J. Roxburgh/L. Golombek/L. Komaroff/R.E. Darley-Doran; "Timurids", in Encyclopaedia of Islam; Brill; Online Edition (2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.128.231 (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia, Qatar, and Germany population

These numbers make sense but can anyone provide a source for them?

Language and Religion sections should be under Culture

A new section was created for Culture and Language and Religion were changed to subsections under Culture. But as usual the vandal user: Kingturtle reverts constructive edits and reduces the quality of the encyclopedia and thereby breaks the most important rules of Wikipedia. Someone should re-create the Culture section and place Language and Religion as subsections. This is done in all ethnic group articles such as English people.

user: Bejnar misquoted the source on Pamiris

Bejnar's source, titled THE FORMATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF PAMIRI ETHNIC IDENTITY IN TAJIKISTAN, is obviously (from the title) about Pamiris and Tajiks in Tajikistan not Afghanistan. In Tajikistan, just as the source says, Tajiks and Pamiris are considered and counted as seperate groups. In Afghanistan they consider themselves Tajiks and are considered and counted as Tajiks.

Yes, the report is primarily about the Pamiris in Tajikistan. It indicates that these people exist on both sides of the political border (Tajikistan/Afghanistan), and that their sense of "nationalism" is not boundary specific. --Bejnar (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ofcoarse they exist on both sides. But the article talks about the Pamiris of Tajikistan not Afghanistan. Stop falsifying information.
If you read the report, you will see that it talks about both, because they consider the boundary to be artificial. --Bejnar (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks dropping ethnicity

On 11 March 2008 Anoshirawan added to the Afghanistan section the sentence "Unlike other groups in Afghanistan, the Tajiks do not organize themselves by tribes and refer to themselves by they region, province, city, town, or village they are from; such as Badakhshani, Samangani, Mazari, Panjsheri, Kabuli, Herati, etc." While I believe this to be true in the urban population, it is not supported at all in the reference given which was http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-39.html. While rural individuals may refer to their place of origin, they are also more likely to refer to their tribe or ethnicity, such as Pamiri. What the cited article actually said on this point was "Afghan Tajik live mainly in the Panjsher Valley north of Kabul and in the northern and northeastern provinces of Parwan, Takhar, Badakhshan, and also Baghlan and Samangan. Tajik also extend into the central mountains. There is a tendency of some non-Tajik groups to classify any Dari speaker as a member of this group. Some also tend to categorize any urban resident who has become detribalized as Tajik. This is particularly true in Kabul." --Bejnar (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you don't believe it to be true. It is sourced and since we are from Afghanistan we can confirm that the source is correct on this matter.

Urbanized non-Tajiks are not Tajiks and most Pashtuns who have detribalized still refer themselves as Pashtun or they simply use their tribal identity(ex. muhammadzai,noorzai,sadozai..etc).--Anoshirawan 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's funny is this Bejnar removed one sentence sourced by LOC because he didn't believe it and now he is sourcing another sentence with LOC because it agrees with his POVs. This guy is ridicilous. Everyone knows that Tajiks identify themselves by region and it is unheard of for a Pashtun to call themselves Tajik no matter how Tajikized (Persianized) back. He is taking full advantage of the fact that the article is protected from knowledgeable users and is pushing his POVs here also as well as on other articles (eg. claiming Dari (Persian) should be called Eastern Farsi in English when Farsi isn't even an English word, the English word for Farsi is Persian). This Bejnar is either pushing for POVs or is lacking a lot of knowledge in these areas.
I was simply repeating what the source, that Anoshirawan cited, said, which was not what Anoshirawan wrote. I agree that it doesn't matter what I believe, that was my point above. I said that I believed what Anoshirawan wrote was true, at least in urban areas. My point was that his/her source did not support it. --Bejnar (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the source? It clearly says that Tajiks identify themselves by region. Read it again, and tell us, why you are acting like a vandal and removing the following:

Unlike other groups in Afghanistan, the Tajiks do not organize themselves by tribes and refer to themselves by they region, province, city, town, or village they are from; such as Badakhshani, Baghlani, Mazari, Panjsheri, Kabuli, Herati, etc.

Sentence restored without "Unlike other groups". --Bejnar (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, stop lying and stop vandalizing. You did not restore the sentence. You changed it. It should be "region, province, city, town, or village" and it should be "Badakhshani, Baghlani, Mazari, Panjeshri, Kabuli Herati" Again you are showing how much knowledge you lack here, for instance Badakhshani is more correct than Badakhshi. The "i" suffix means "from" and you don't even know that. Restore the sentence the way it was before or you will be reported for vandalism.

(Afghanistani) Badakhshan is a Tajik province

Even if you do not include the Pamiri-speakers, Badakhshan is still by far predominately Tajiks since Pamiri-speakers live in remote areas and their numbers are low. So there is no need to mention that Badakhshan is a Tajik majority province. The read can find this out by seeing the Badakhshan Province article.

Tajik and Dari

So, from what I understand here, most Persian speakers if in Afghanistan are ethnically Tajik. How similar is their language to the "Tajik language" spoken in Tajikistan? We really should address this point in the relevant articles. Lexington1 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same language as Dari/Tajik in Iran, only another dialect/accent, same as in english, german, italian...these two terms are developed by those who wanted to cut the identity and history of Tajiks, to make Tajiks weak by deviding them lingustically. Tajiks are Persians (of central Asia) as Iranians are Persians and Tajiks of modern Afghanistan.--88.68.204.165 (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks are indigenous people of Afghanistan

The source that claims Tajiks are immigrants is ridiculous and outdated. That was false information provided to the British Empire by the ruling Pashtun governments in the 1800s and early 1900s. Today, all Western scholars know that Tajiks are the indigenous people of Afghanistan.

Here is one source:

  • Richard S. Newell "Post-Soviet Afghanistan: The Position of the Minorities". Asian Survey, Vol. 29, No. 11 (Nov., 1989), pp. 1090-1108. Publisher: University of California Press

Despite being the indigenous peoples responsible for carrying on civilized society through the centuries, since the Mongol invasion of Central Asia, Tajiks have never ruled the region that is today Afghanistan — with the exception of the Kart dynasty and the short 10-month rule of Habibullah Kalakani in 1929.

This information is not really correct. Kabulistan was ruled in the 16th century by Ganjshakar Tajikzada. After Timurids arrive Tajiks lost their ruling families in the hand of Timurids and Moghul dynasty of India. Both imperial empires were known for their superiority of their ruling and managing because Tajik were in fact the sub-rulers of these both empires who were acted as generals, governeurs, teachers, scholars ...the elite of both empires. Same count for other Non-Tajik dynasties like the Khawarezmians who were strongly persianated by Tajiks and the Ghaznavids who were originally Turks but became ethnically Persians...the Ghaznavids are known as a native Tajik empire since they were culturally persianized and they also married native women of Khurasan. Herat, Farah, Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul...all are persian names and the main population were in all provinces up to the 18 century Tajiks. Before Timurid era Afghanistan (Khurasanzameen) was ruled by Kart Maliks, Ilyazids, Ghurians, Samanids, Farighunids, Saffarids, Buyids and some other royal houses moved to Iran where there they established now dynasties like Zayyarids ect.--84.59.111.229 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that his information is incorrect. There is no way of verifying it. We tajiks are refugees from the area that is today called Tajikistan. Tajikistan was created as a nation in 1992. We don't need a western man telling us about Afghanistan's history, he did not live there and neither did his relatives or ancestors. There are no tajiks in Afghanistan claiming of being the native people of that country. If you want to learn something get to the main source and to do that you have to read the history of the land that is today Tajikistan. There is lots of history stored and you can see that tajiks in great numbers began fleeing their native territory Russian Turkistan for Afghanistan. It was either become Communist or flee to Afghanistan so majority of them chose Afghanistan.--119.30.77.126 (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tajikistan means Land of Tajiks and Tajik is the term for Persians. Unlike Tajiks of Afghanistan, Tajiks in other central Asian countries became their territories as their country. The term Tajik, as a historical word for Persian, was used again in 1929 by russians and in 1933 by PigToon Facists to seperate Persians of central Asia and Iran and make them weak. Till that Tajiks were known still as Khurasanians and Farsiwans. So bark into the pussy of your mother but not here where noone is believing your PigTOON Puta Khazana shit....fart of a donkey lol--84.59.111.229 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just said the term tajik used again in 1929 by Russians and Pashtuns to seperate persians of central Asia and iran and make them weak. You must work for Russians and Pashtuns because you are going around everyday putting tajik behind everyone's names in articles in here. So you people are seperated and proud I guess. Everything that tajiks say are nonsense and contradictions. I believe all this hate is what your parents tought you, they lacked education because there was never any good education system in Afghanistan. You tajiks ride donkeys so much so obviously you know so much about donkey farts. See here tajik women riding donkeys to work and see here Tajiks in Afghanistan I bet you used to ride a donkey to school every morning and had to hear donkey farts with your father.--119.30.72.58 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little donkeyzai, donkey are known as work animals for Tajiks while for you PigToons they are sexual toys and part of your backward, savage, homosexual, sodomy practizing culture. And the women on the donkey is an uzbek woman from Tajikistan, little Awghan hound. You Awghans are so pathetic, poor, you are the dirt of the world hahahaha, Pashtun e Kharzai hahaha. Little hound, your royal family had 250 years the power but since all Awghuls are stupid and backward you were never able to offer sth, except homosexuality, savagery, sodomy, kidnapping, killing, looting, tents, camels, dog and chickenfights, sargin, sholomba (ROOOOFL hahahaha)..little Pashtun dog. A Tajik will never be a PigToonzai, a dirty arab jew turk mongolic homosexual hindu dog. That´s you cultural awghans who have no civilization, culture, art, science...ect..but Tajiks are those with the superiour culture, history, language that infiltrated all turkic states including Bosnia, Makedonia, Yugoslavia, Kosovo and south Russia plus entire northern India..little Awghan hound. What do you want to prove with some pictures? That Tajiks are the same as you dirty cockroaches who are made of shit, look like shit, smell like shit, eat shit,...? Ghulzai! Hahahaha pathetic Awghan boy, get some Sargin to get calm or make your worms that are in your ars calm--84.59.127.102 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.198.158 (talk) [reply]

Significant Unsubstantiation

Hi, The article is quite long, and not without much in the way of fault. In-text citations are sadly lacking for some impotant statements. The article's factual accuracy ought to be contested if no unverified statements are remaining without backing. All sections requiring attention should be tagged or removed. I've put an alert over the introduction for potential readers awareness of these issues - that much goes unverified. And if someone claims a substantiation on the basis of "I'm from this area" or "I'm one of these people, trust me, I know this", disqualification from encyclopedic contribution on the subject ought to be considered. Remember, this isn't a blog; it is an encyclopedia.--Jhelyam (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The intro of the article is not specific. While it is true that "Tajik" is a Turkic word for "Iranian", this article, however, is about the specific group that speaks Persian and is identical to "Persian", which is also the alternative meaning of "Tajik".

The second part of the intro correctly points to the fact, that alternative names for the Tajiks are "Persian" and "Persian-speakers". But the "Tajiks" of China are not Persian-speakers. They are - linguistically - a different group with a different language.

Tājik (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are treading into dangerous territory here, and I know pan-Iranists are all over this article as it is. I hope to go by the mainstream scholarly opinion that Dari is a dialect of Persian, much like Tehrani or any other dialect. --Enzuru 17:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Encyclopaedia of Islam says: TĀDJĪK, the later form of a word Tāzīk or Tāžīk used in the Iranian and Turkish worlds. In Islamic usage, it eventually came to designate the Persians, as opposed to the Turks. (C.E. Bosworth in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, digital edition) Tājik (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is the historical definition, however, Tajiks today by both Western scholarship and national defintions (ie, the ones you would find in Afghanistan or Tajikistan) are not just considered Persians. They are considered a separate ethnic group. For example, under Tajik statistics, we have the amount of Tajiks in Iran, that alone implying Tajiks in Iran (Afghani refugees) are not the same as Persians, or else they would be calculated with that total. Anyway, they are considered to be a member of Iranian peoples, which Pashtuns are too, but that's a separate issue. We shouldn't try to revisionists, let's stick to what modern contemporary scholarship says about these people. --Enzuru 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I understand your point. But we still need a better intro, because this article covers not only the present modern nations, but also historical identities. As for the Tajiks: you really cannot compare them to Pashtuns, because unlike the Pashtuns, the Tajiks are Persian-speaking and thus part of the Persian people. Tājik (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oki doki, what do you have in mind? I think we need to show both the historical viewpoint (ie, there is little to no difference) as well as the contemporary viewpoint (a separate ethnic group) and lightly touch on why that happened (nationalism among Iranian nations). --Enzuru 22:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh trust me, I agree, I shudder whenever a pan-Iranist tries to convince me to start speaking Farsi and fight for Afghanistan's eventual unification with some mythical Iraniland. It pisses me off beyond words. --Enzuru 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro should explain the very basic meaning of the word "Tajik", as does the Encyclopaedia of Islam: Tajik is a general term for Persian-speakers of Iranian origin (in contrast to Persian-speakers of Turko-Mongol origins) living in the east of Iran. This is not about Pan-Iranism or whatever. Please not that it is a fact that Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan speak the same language and are considered "Pashtuns" (though officially, Pakistan uses the expression "Pathan", thus suggesting a difference between the two groups). The same way, it is also a fact that Persian-speakers on borth side of the Iran-Afghanistan border are more or less the same group, though modern political states (such as Afghanistan) use a different expression and thus suggest a difference between these groups. As long as we have good sources (and the Encyclopaedia of Islam is a very good source), they should not be ignored. Modern scholars say pretty much the same. Richard Nelson Frye, for example, sees the Tajiks as "Persians". Tājik (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds all fine, however, you make one error. No source considers the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan different. Do we have a different article for Pashtun, Pakhtun, and Pathan on Wikipedia? No, this does not exist. But there is, as you can obviously see, a separate article for Tajiks. And no, we don't ignore good sources, because to be honest they don't contradict: what contradicts is what we choose to emphasize. If we present the Tajik people as they are, we should encounter no issues. --Enzuru 22:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. I think that it is a good idea to have separate articles for "Tajiks" and "Dari", as long as those articles explain that, for instance, "Tajiks" are - despite the different terminology - more or less identical to the Persians elsewhere (as language defines ethnicity) or that "Dari" is a dialect of Persian. As for Pashtuns: Wikipedia has two separate articles in regard of "Pashtun" and "Afghan". Scholastic encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica, do not differentiate between "Afghan" and "Pashtun". They also do not differenciate between "Tajik" and "Persian". In the Encyclopaedia of Islam, for example, the article "Tajik" only deals with the meaning of the name, while the Tajiks as a people (like all other Iranian peoples) are dealt under the lemma "Iran". For the time being, I think that this version of the intro was acceptable. Tājik (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, the term Afghani leads to a disambiguation page, one of which links directly to the article on Pashtuns, another which links to a citizen of Afghanistan (which is like Tajik and Tajikistani). So, there is still a difference. Also, the reason the Encyclopedia of Islam classifies them as one group is because they were the same thing in a historical context, but they are no longer considered the same thing in a contemporary context, in new papers on the subject you will rarely if ever find Tajiks and Persians being considered as synonymous. You'll be hard-pressed to find much material about Pashtuns in a pre-Islamic context altogether. --Enzuru 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archive

It looks like time to archive some of the older threads... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 16:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora

I'm on the talk page and don't see anything as the edit instructed. If it's fine I will change it to refugee populations, or descendant of refugee populations, in order to distinguish Iran and Pakistan from the traditional lands of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. --Enzuru 20:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Tajiks in Iran and Pakistan are refugees, others are not. --Bejnar (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An overwhelming amount are refugees. The non-refugee populations that lived here are well under 1% of the population in each nation to my knowledge. --Enzuru 21:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what percentage are the refugees? --Bejnar (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ancestral homelands & diaspora?

An editor suggested that the Tajiks in Pakistan and Iran were the result of disaspor, which Webster defines as "the movement, migration, or scattering of a people away from an established or ancestral homeland". As Enzuru remarked above, while historically the Tajiks and Persians had the same roots, recent scholarship considers them distinct at this point in time. The ancestral homeland of the Iranian peoples (plural intended) is usually situated north of present day Afghanistan, and sometimes westerly as well. "The area between northern Afghanistan and the Aral Sea is hypothesized to have been the region where the Proto-Iranians first emerged, following the separation of Indo-Iranian tribes." {"The Paleolithic Indo-Europeans") On that basis the Tajiks in Afghanistan would be as diasporic as those in Pakistan and Iran, as would the Persians in Persia. The population of Tajiks in Iran and Pakistan are the result of recent (ebbing and flowing over the last four hundred years) political boundaries, not the result of a new diaspora. --Bejnar (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're tying the historical and contemporary definition of Tajiks. This is Wikipedia, so we solely use scholarly sources, this article has nothing to do with Iranian peoples in general or the historical/political beliefs in regards to that. Find me a source that says Tajiks are in a diaspora/refugees in Afghanistan or Tajikistan, or that Persians are in a diaspora/refugee in Iran. You can't find a single mainstream source that says that. I can certainly find sources that claims that Tajiks are refugees in Pakistan and Iran. --Enzuru 21:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. There are plenty of Tajiks in Iran and Pakistan that ARE NOT refugees. I was just trying to show you that the use of the word "diaspora" was a bit much. --Bejnar (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

I have corrected the numbers in regard of Uzbekistan according to the sources available. We have, practically, 3 different sources: (1) official UZ government, (2) CIA factbook, (3) suggestive estimates by experts

The numbers strongly differ, ranging from 1.4m (official) to ca. 8.0m (suggestive estimates by experts; Foltz gives 15-30%, which is ca. 8.0m of the total population at highest).

The overall number, i.e. the sum of all numbers given, is ca. 16.0m (lowest) to 25.0m (highest). Keeping in mind that there are no reliable numbers at, and that the word "Tajik" designates a wide range of peoples in the region, I think that these estimates are quite realistic. Tājik (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the number of 8 million Tajiks in Uzbekistan you show on the basis of Foltz's upper bound estimate (30%) exceeds by a large margin the total number of Tajiks in Tajikistan (5-6 million)? I honestly do not think that Foltz intended his rough percentage estimates to be used for numerical calculations. --Zlerman (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does not. The number of "Tajiks", i.e. Persian-speakers, in Afghanistan - excluding Aimak and Hazara - is over 8.0m. And modern South Uzbekistan is the actual center of the "Tajik" population of Central Asia, with the core being in the Bukhara-Samarqand region. Modern Tajikistan, which was created out of nothing during the reign of Stalin, is just one small portion of the Persian-speaking lands of Central Asia.
To undesratnd this, one has to examin the history of the region. The ethnic groups "Tajik" and "Uzbek" are creations of the Soviet colonial strategy. Prior to Soviet rule, the people were only known as "Chagatai" or "Turk" on one side (designating the nomads and semi-nomads) and "Sart" or "Tajik" on the other side (designating the urbanized people). Almost all were bilingual, and the terms "Turk" and "Tajik" incorporated both Turkic- and Iranian-speakers, depending on their urban or nomadic life-style. It's quite obvious that "Tajiks", i.e. Persian-speakers, who are still the majority in and around Bukhara and Samarqand, are far more than the tiny 5% presented by the Uzbek government. That's why almost all experts, not only Foltz, estimate the number around 30%. I have even come accross 40-60%. Tājik (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: here is an interesting source (Iraj Bashiri):
  • ... Even though at that time the Tajik population of Turkistan was 1.3 million, in a report by the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Central Asian Bureau of the Communist Party (b) of the Union, I. A. Zelinskii, states that except for Gorno-Badakhshan-western Pamir 25 -the very existence of the Tajiks is denied. 26 It is worth noting that while the 290,000 Turkmens who lived in Tajikistan had been granted the right to publish books and newspapers and to open Turkmeni schools, the Tajiks were deprived of all that. This was the result of the hidden agenda of the Pan-Turkists. Their hostility against the Tajiks reached the highest ranks of Party and Soviet leadership. The proof is the circular of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Russia, issued on 12 August, 1920, which directs the Communist Party apparata of Turkistan to improve its communist and soviet relations with the local population of the republic. Furthermore, it leaves out the people actually being oppressed. The circular states, "The local inhabitants of Turkistan are the Uzbeks, Kyrgyzes, and Turkmens. The Soviet government must rely on the working masses among these people." 27 The policies of the Pan-Turkists and the Great-Uzbek and anti-Tajik chauvinists yielded devastating results for the Tajiks. Seeing how lucrative jobs went to the Turks and how Uzbeki became the official language of instruction, the majority of the Tajiks panicked. Furthermore, safeguarding themselves and their children against a dim future, they registered themselves as Uzbeks. The 1920 census shows that the number of the Tajiks in Turkistan, in comparison to the previous census, had been reduced by one third. The number of the Uzbeks had increased correspondingly ... [1] Tājik (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, it is time we put to rest the myth that "the ethnic groups 'Tajik' and 'Uzbek' are creations of the Soviet colonial strategy" (see above). The 1897 census of the Russian Empire lists separately Uzbeks and Tajiks (as well as Sarts, but no Chagatais). See demoscope.ru. The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary, published in the last decade of the 19th century, also has separate articles on Tajiks and Uzbeks (as well as an article on Sarts, but again nothing on Chagatai for some reason). So Tajiks and Uzbeks (and Sarts) were well-defined ethnicities already in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th century (and in fact also much earlier, as searches through relevant Russian literature show). Let's not saddle Stalin with the responsibility for creating Uzbek and Tajik ethnicities: it's enough to hold him responsible for creating Tajik ASSR within Uzbek SSR (1924) and then tortuously upgrading it to Tajik SSR (1929) -- as described in such graphic detail in Rahim Masov's book quoted in the previous paragraph from Iraj Bashiri's web site. --Zlerman (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the recent, unjustified deletions by User:Banigul. Please use talk page first. Tājik (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have an eye on Ghazni article. Pashtun Mohammadzais and sons of Dombdarzai Zarghuna Pakhpala are changing the information about it´s population.

Banigul is NisarPakistani and Khampalak, the Jewzai--88.68.197.110 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been harassing the Pashtun article too! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks in China moved to Pamiris in China

Please look at what has been done to Tajiks in China (without any discussion}. Is this acceptable? --Zlerman (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the last edit for contradicting its own source. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 20:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why healthy contribuitions are being undone by other Editors

I have made some changes to the artical, which were all facts and did not offend anyone were not unsourced, but user pashtun ismailiyya has undo that, i want to say to you have you even read it or just undo it.What was your objection in those editings i am sure you even don't know about it all, so if a person who knows a little about something adds more info then you should act responsibly and should not undo it all like it was not important.This is not a healthy thing to do.you should have told your objections to it and after that should have undone it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystar 123 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the edits, and check the source. If it is not a good edit, and unsourced, or contradicts the source, it has to be undone. Do you have a concern that you would like to have fixed? Best thing is to mention it on the talk page and we can talk in detail how to fix it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

First of all, I have removed the long and racist comment by User:Alishah85 from the talk page. Secondly, I have reverted the obvious falsification of numbers. He not only inserted the unreliable numbers of the "Joshua Project", a Christian organization that does not cite any sources and has the sole purpose to convert people, but he also ignored the other numbers and sources given. Tājik (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alishah85, this is not a discussion forum or a platform where you can propagate your pseudo-scientific theories. Tājik (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Beruni was not Tajik; he spoke Khwarezmian language which was different from southwest Iranian Persian. (Also he did not look mongoloid unlike most modern Tajiks of Tajikstan.) Also it is ridiculous some Tajiks delete the picture of their president - in other ethnic groups in wikipedia pictures of presidents are included in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.246.172 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I got five bucks everytime the term "mongoloid" came up in a wiki conversation about Central Asian ethnicity. Does "discredited race theory" mean anything? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tajiks live in Samarkand, Tajikistan and northwestern Afghanistan and those regions are called Russian Turkistan and Afghan Turkestan. They look like Turks like Uzbeks, Turkmens, etc. but have borrowed Persian language, and they destroyed beautiful native East Iranian languages of the region. 119.152.246.46 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent edit

I have removed and corrected an obvious falsification by User:Bejnar. The actual quote from Encyclopaedia of Islam goes:

  • Tādjīk, the later form of a word Tāzīk or Tāžīk used in in the Iranian and Turkish worlds. In Islamic usage, it eventually came to designate the Persians, as opposed to the Turks.

I have the entire article on PDF. If anyone is interested, please let me know. I can send you the article via E-Mail. Tajik (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the restrictive sense in the "original". --Bejnar (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tajiks or Pamiris in China

Recently there has been a dispute on this page concerning the correct name to call the Sariqoli and Wakhi speaking people who live in Xinjiang province in China. Recently the user Alefbe Reverted an edited that called the above people in China "Tajiks" and he stated This page is not about Tajiks of Tashkurgan (they are Pamiri, no matter if some of them can also speak Persian. I personally disputed this claim and call for the addition of a reference to the "Tajiks in China", or a variant there of, to be added to Tajik peoples page. I ask that people provide evidence to the contrary if they believe this is incorrect. The reason why I take this veiw is that the official title of these people in China, according to the Chinese government and Chinese langauge sources, is "Tajik" and historically they have been called "Tajiks." Two sources that support this are:

I could produce hundreds of other examples. I know of no sources that refer to the Sariqoli and Wakhi speakers in China as "Pamiri." In fact, I do not know examples of speakers of the Pamiri languages in Afghanistan or Pakistan being called Pamiris. I've only encountered sources in Tajikistan that use the term Pamiri, which was a term created during the period of Soviet rule in that country.

This debate is in fact a spill over the debate from the page now called Tajiks in Xinjiang, was originally called Tajiks in China, and had been changed to Pamiri people in China. To see more about this debate go to : Talk:Tajiks_of_Xinjiang

David Straub (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not about the common name of that ethnic group in China (for that, discuss it in its own talk page). We have a disambiguation page for Tajiks. It has links to this page (which is about "Central Asian Persian-speakers"), Pamiri people, and Tajiks of Xinjiang (as a subgroup of Pamiri people or whatever you call them). This page is not about Tajiks of Xinjiang. That's why we put a link to the disambiguation page, at the top of this page, to guide those who are looking for that article and have ended up in this page. That's the way we do disambiguation in Wikipedia. Alefbe (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminnistrators Please Block the page from Edits by Unregistered Users

One IP which shows is a pashtun based on its contribution and eidts, is veryy vadalising to Tajik pages. So please lock the page for the unregistred users. I am a newbie in wkipedia and after doing some referenced Edits and contributions i was lablelled as sock puppet of behnam, which i dont know what it is?

Plus i want help with seeting and creation of my personal page can any one help me how to add pictures, add language proficiency and and how can i contribute to the articles. Muxlim (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. BencherliteTalk 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Tājik people → Tajik people — This article should be moved to "Tajik people" because academic sources and the government of Tajikistan almost universally refer to the people of Tajikistan as "Tajik" and not "Tājik." David Straub (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To extend on my above comments, a google search for the term "Tājik people" reveals that with the exception of wikipedia and wikipedia mirror sites, almost all of the 35,000 hits are for pages that use the spelling "Tajik people". Academic sources, such as the the page at the Encyclopedia Iranica about the Tajik people, use the term "Tajik" and not "Tājik", as does the website of the embassy of Tajikistan in Washington. D.C. In addition, this page was originally moved from "Tajik people" to "Plain Tajiks" and then "Tājik people", in violation of wikipedia's request page move procedure.

I understand the desire to name pages after the correct pronunciation in the native language, and thus using the terms Tājik or Tojik, but the wikipedia rules for naming pages dictates that "spellings should follow English usage", or else Chinese will become "Zhongguo Ren", Germans will be called "Deutsche", Japanese will be replaced with "Nihonjin", etc. David Straub (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Refugee populations in Iran and Pakistan

One more time. Enclosed link have not any word about soviet war. Probably those refugee populations are a result of another war?--Skrod (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name

On 15 November 2009, Skrod presented some interesting new data on the possible origin of the name Tajaks. My understanding is that this theory put forward by Bartold in 1925 has not been accepted in scholarly circles. Any comment? --Bejnar (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The data is not new, it is a standard. In fact, it is the main theory presented in the Encyclopaedia of Islam as well as in Encyclopaedia Iranica. "Tajik" is a corruption of "Tazik", the element "Tazi" being itself a corruption of "Ṭayyiʿ", the name a prominent Arab tribe in Central Asia (after the Muslim conquest). In Islamic usage, it became the common reference to Muslim Persians - explicitly. de:Tadschiken has long been updated. Tajik (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik means wearer of the crown. "Taaj" means crown in persian. Tajiks ruled Central-Asia for decades and where giving the name "Taajiki", wearer of the crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.85.21 (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a less inflammatory quote we can use?

I think the quote "It's appropriate to tell the King, Your Turk shed the blood of Tājik" is a bit too inflammatory and the quality of this page would improve if some other quote was used. This sort of stuff just feeds the Tajik/Persian versus Turk clash that has already infects many of the Central Asian articles on wikipedia and really brings down the over all quality of the entire Central Asian body of articles on wikipedia.David Straub (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, this page is apparently plagued by the usual racialism and puerile ethnic nationalism. Wikipedia gets a lot of this for practically every population group east of Zagreb. --dab (𒁳) 15:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction of this article is lacking references, please cite reliable sources to verify some of the lines. Thanks,Ahmed shahi (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RV

I have reverted User:Ketabtoon's edits:

a) Tajiks are an estimated 30% of Kapisa and hence the largest ethnic group. b) The claim that Pashtuns are the majority of Kabul province is unsourced. Since Kabul City (which is an integral part of the province) with its >2 million inhabitants is without any doubt a Tajik and Persian-speaking city, Tajiks are also automatically the majority in the province. The majority of other districts may be Pashtun, but summing it up (including the city), Tajiks are the majority of the city and the province. If you claim otherwise, then please prove it.

I have also removed a totally unsourced paragraph from the intro which is not supported by the EI or EIr. Tajik (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) Even though they are the largest ethnic group in the province, they do not predominate the province, as the non-Tajiks make up the remaining 70% of the population. There is only a 3% difference between Tajiks (30%) and Pashtuns (27%). They predominate in provinces like Balkh, where Pashtuns make up 27% of the total population as well, but Tajiks make up over 50% of the province. However, Kapisa is a different case.
b) The claim that Pashtuns (Pashto speakers) make up 60% of Kabul Province is properly sourced. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Historical Claims

I've tagged this article' history section for such statements as the following & for the contentious nature of the claim to a "Tajik" Samanid dynasty. II.

The Tajiks trace their ancestry to the [Eastern Iranian]-speaking Bactrians, Sogdians, and Parthians, - the southwestern Iranian language, today known as 'Farsi' in Iran and Afghanistan.

And where exactly do Tajiks trace their ancestry to these ancient east Iranian peoples? I haven't heard Afghan villagers claiming this, nor even educated Tajiks I've met elsewhere. Such beliefs would seem to originate from Tajikistani(i.e., Tajikistan) national propaganda. This should be removed or thoroughly validated.

III.The 'Tajiks' adoption of the now dominant Persian language (albeit in a distinct Tajiki form), a Western Iranian language is believed to have as its root cause, the dominance of the Persian empire in the region during the Achaemenid and Sassanid dynasties

It is above claimed that the Tajiks "adopted" the southwestern-persian language, possibly implying that an ancient northeastern-persian language was spoken previously. Quite apart from taking on a semi-nationalistic tone, there is no validation for those statements. It looks like mere speculation being asserted as factual, and lacking citations at that. Such should be removed from the article if it cannot be adequately confirmed.

IV.Tajiki is the most archaic and pure form of the Persian language

Again, cite source please? Remember, contentious and/or poorly/unsourced statements are subject to challenge and removal. Thanks for your help.--Jhelyam (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to some researchers the word Tajik comes from the name of the Arab tribe Tay that migrated to Khorassan

According to some researchers the word Tajik comes from the name of the Arab tribe Tay that migrated to Khorassan

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as the Tajik ethnic group

Tajiks are ethnic Persians, they are ethnically no different to Persians of Iran except perhaps with respect to religion and dialect of Farsi. This article should be deleted as there is no need for it or moved to the Persian peoples section.

This article should be moved

^I fully agree with the person above. This article should be moved to the article that is called Persian people, as Tajiks are ethnic Persians and even the name "Tajik" is just a local/regional name for the word "Persian" in Afghanistan/Tajikistan region. Tajik is one of the regional dialects of the Persian language and is fully understandable by other Persian dialect speakers such as Farsi and Dari. All three of these are regional dialects of ethnic Persian people. Even a famous Persian pop-singer, Googoosh, is enjoyed by most Tajiks because Farsi is just a regional dialect and same with Tajik and Dari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.163.64 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I oppose moving this article to a Persian people article, for the many reasons stated in my comments above. Most notable is that they are called "Tajiks". --Bejnar (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I also oppose moving the article. But the special relation to medieval Persians, their continuation into the modern Tajik identity, as well as the special relationship between modern Tajiks and (Iranian) Persians should be pointed out in the article. The article should also make clear that - technically - only the Persian-speakers of former Soviet Central Asia are "Tajiks" (compare to the EI article). The "Tajiks" of Afghanistan have only adopted this name recently. --Lysozym (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You state: "for the many reasons stated in my comments above. Most notable is that they are called "Tajiks"."

To be honest, that's not a very good argument at all, because, in that case, why don't you give ethnic Germans stuck in Polish, Hungarian, and Swiss national territories after the first world war a separate page? I'm sure the locals in those regions also refer to them by a different name? Remember, Tajik = Persian, it's just the term that throughout history, the neighbouring Turkic-populations would refer to us by. And you must understand that borders with countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Tajikistan were made in the last 100 years. Also, to further demonstrate the ridiculousness of a page called "Tajik people", In terms of language 'Tajik' cannot even be categorized as a dialect, because in truth, it's actually an accent. The difference is so small, and is much like the differences between American and Canadian accents. Except here, we're not talking about nationalities, were talking about an ethnic group which was separated through political procedures in the last 100 years. Honestly, this page is not only offensive to the ethnic integrity of the Persian people, but is overall quite unnecessary and can be easily considered as being political motivated. This page, should without a doubt be deleted right away.--Xythianos (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole distinction was created by the Anglos and Russians to divide and weaken the Persian people and culture. These people seem to be continuing their great game here as well. So here are the facts, for those who care: 1) The Tajiks of Afghanistan are descendants of Western Iranian Persians, Parthians and Arians. You have to know that when Persians took power, they totally united and mixed with the Parthians and Arians to the point that they became one people. They had the same roots that go back thousands of years. Thus, the old Persians, Parthians and Arians are now all Persians. They are Western Iranian and speak Farsi as their mother tongue. The farsi of Iran and Afghanistan is practically the same. Brief, Tajiks of Afghanistan are Persians totally. 2) The Tajiks of Central Asia (Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) are the former Sogdians. They were a Eastern Iranian tribe. With time, their blood was mixed a great deal with the Tuks who invaded those regions continuously. That's why the "Tajiks" of Afghanistan look the same as the Persians of Iran, but the Tajiks of Central Asia have a more Mongoloid characteristic. Their language is much more different and is much more difficult to understand. Thus, the Tajiks of Central Asia are "Turko-Sogdian", with corresponding language and customs. 3) The Tajiks of Afghanistan are NOT the same people as the Tajiks of Central Asia. I don't know where this nonsense began, but I bet it's with some ignorant European centuries ago, and the nonsense remained until now. As I said before, the Tajiks of Afghanista are "Persians, Parthians and Arians", all Western Iranians. The Tajiks of Central Asia are "Turko-Sogdian", which is a mixture of Turkic and Eastern Iranian races. We are not the same race, nor we speak the same language.--Kasparov49acer 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaweiss (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tajiks&oldid=452997212"